2013 Random F1 Discussion

RtN · PostPosted: Thu Aug 22, 2013 11:40 pm

codename_47 wrote:

So Mercedes will be fastest in a straight line next year...big deal.

What if the Mercedes had 100bhp more than anyone else?

ellis · PostPosted: Thu Aug 22, 2013 11:44 pm

It's more likely a torque issue rather than horse power.

RtN · PostPosted: Thu Aug 22, 2013 11:59 pm

http://www.auto-motor-und-sport.de/form ... 64699.html

Quote:

Besonders die Werte von Mercedes geben Anlass zur Sorge. Im Fahrerlager erzählt man sich hinter vorgehaltener Hand, dass der Silberpfeil-Motor 100 PS mehr leisten soll als die Aggregate von Renault und Ferrari.

Quote:

In particular, the values of Mercedes give cause for concern. In the paddock it is said behind closed doors that the Silver Arrow engine should make 100 hp more than the aggregate of Renault and Ferrari.

Gaara · PostPosted: Fri Aug 23, 2013 12:29 am

Mmm tyres

Munch munch munch

kals · PostPosted: Fri Aug 23, 2013 2:43 am

RtN wrote:

codename_47 wrote:

So Mercedes will be fastest in a straight line next year...big deal.

What if the Mercedes had 100bhp more than anyone else?

Then they've done a better job building the engine compared to their competitors.

RtN · PostPosted: Fri Aug 23, 2013 12:34 pm

kals wrote:

RtN wrote:

codename_47 wrote:

So Mercedes will be fastest in a straight line next year...big deal.

What if the Mercedes had 100bhp more than anyone else?

Then they've done a better job building the engine compared to their competitors.

Of course, but it would be a pretty fucking big deal if they disappear up the road on every single straightaway, no?

Fish88 · PostPosted: Fri Aug 23, 2013 12:36 pm

Era of Mercedes GP coming up. Expect crying Horner and Marko in upcoming years.

Every big rule change leads to one dominating team at some point. until 2004, Ferrari. 2005 - 2006,Renault until other came back in 2007. 2009 changes clearly helped Red Bull (except 2009 with Brawn being better in first half). Mercedes will dominate (if rumors are true) until others catch up or when rules changes. F1 has always been like that, nothing new.

ellis · PostPosted: Fri Aug 23, 2013 12:53 pm

Scotty wrote:

You mean the hybrid regen technology WEC cars use? You mean the systems like Audi and Toyota used which were developed by...F1 programs?

By "F1 programs" is a bit of artistic license there. The flywheel system was developed by Williams Hybrid Power, which is a completely standalone company from the F1 team. It also ignores the MASSIVE amount of work and funding that VAG has put into the system. Saying that was developed by F1 (even though it never ran in F1) is like saying F1 developed those funky IR cameras Mercedes put on the road cars, because Mercedes has an F1 team too. Toyota don't run anywhere near the same technology as F1, as they use supercapacitors, not batteries. And the technology to pick up energy from braking was around before F1 as well. The closest works team to run a system similar to the F1 system was Peugeot when they made an electric 908 hybrid which used very similar tech to F1. But that car never ran properly. There are a couple of other hybrids that've run, but they weren't true efforts.

Of course hybrid technology is only a part of what I meant by WEC cars. Look at Audi, where it's running a 4WD hybrid system (not part of F1), it's progressed diesel technology (not part of F1), it's developed a new extremely lightweight paint (not part of F1), and they've made massive strides in headlight technology with new LED systems (not part of F1). And this is before we start discussing the diagnostics technology they started with the R8, and the systems they use to 'hot swap' major parts of the car, which has been put into Audi road cars to try and bring down service time and costs. And this is just Audi - start looking at other stuff, such as the new awesome Michelin Slick Wets, which is just cool.

You cannot specifically blame F1 for this, as the rules limit what they can do now days really. Nobody can rock up with a diesel. Nobody can develope a Wankle. It's hard to progress when you're told what you've got to build. But in terms of what has directly benefitted road car technology, Le Mans is in a different league to F1. F1's biggest contribution is safety and helmet technology, which is more of an FIA effort, but certainly would not have been able to do that without F1s popularity.

ellis · PostPosted: Fri Aug 23, 2013 12:55 pm

RtN wrote:

http://www.auto-motor-und-sport.de/formel-1/neuer-v6-fuer-2014-mercedes-mit-grossem-motor-vorteil-7564699.html

Quote:

Besonders die Werte von Mercedes geben Anlass zur Sorge. Im Fahrerlager erzählt man sich hinter vorgehaltener Hand, dass der Silberpfeil-Motor 100 PS mehr leisten soll als die Aggregate von Renault und Ferrari.

Quote:

In particular, the values of Mercedes give cause for concern. In the paddock it is said behind closed doors that the Silver Arrow engine should make 100 hp more than the aggregate of Renault and Ferrari.

Tyres are generally more concerned with torque than pure HP numbers. They talk about HP in a news article because it's easier to describe. But I bet Pirellis response to Mercedes was more about a general torque number.

Gaara · PostPosted: Fri Aug 23, 2013 12:58 pm

I do wish they'd open the engine rules up a bit again. I know there's the cost part but F1 was supposed to be about technology, not a slow decent into a spec series.

kals · PostPosted: Fri Aug 23, 2013 1:37 pm

RtN wrote:

kals wrote:

RtN wrote:

What if the Mercedes had 100bhp more than anyone else?

Then they've done a better job building the engine compared to their competitors.

Of course, but it would be a pretty fucking big deal if they disappear up the road on every single straightaway, no?

I'm surprised this is a point of discussion, let alone a point of contention. Afterall everything that F1 teams try to do is simply be better than the rest. Sport is all about doing a better job than the competition. Stoke don't complain to the FA because they don't have the same quality players as ManU. F1 is no different and should be no different.

And as has been pointed out already, this isn't a new occurence in F1. In past history some engines have produced vastly more horsepower than others. In some cases this has helped create domination, but in a lot of others it hasn't because the powerful engine wasn't coupled with a decent chassis.

mclaren2008 · PostPosted: Fri Aug 23, 2013 1:51 pm

Quote:

Suzuka has secured its place on the Formula 1 calendar until at least the 2018 season, with circuit officials and Bernie Ecclestone penning a new five-year agreement.

good news

Tobias · PostPosted: Fri Aug 23, 2013 1:52 pm

now Spa's turn to sign a 1000 year deal.

RtN · PostPosted: Fri Aug 23, 2013 2:56 pm

kals wrote:

I'm surprised this is a point of discussion, let alone a point of contention. Afterall everything that F1 teams try to do is simply be better than the rest. Sport is all about doing a better job than the competition. Stoke don't complain to the FA because they don't have the same quality players as ManU. F1 is no different and should be no different.

And as has been pointed out already, this isn't a new occurence in F1. In past history some engines have produced vastly more horsepower than others. In some cases this has helped create domination, but in a lot of others it hasn't because the powerful engine wasn't coupled with a decent chassis.

I'm not moaning about this supposed super-engine that Mercedes has. I'm pointing out that it would not just be a case of Mercedes being 5 or 10km\h faster on the straights.

If it is true, then a Mercedes-powered car will win the title next year. There is no scope in the rulebook to make up that sort of power deficit in aero gains alone, not anymore.

kals · PostPosted: Fri Aug 23, 2013 3:00 pm

I'm still failing to see the problem, unless all you want is Mercedes not to win the title. To be honest, if Mercedes have built a product that far outperforms every other team on the grid, then surely they deserve to win the title, no? I mean, that is what Red Bull have done this past few years, what Renault did in 2005 and 2006, what Ferrari did for many years before them, what Williams and McLaren did throughout the 80's and 90's, and what countless other teams did before that, etc...

micha · PostPosted: Fri Aug 23, 2013 3:02 pm

Gaara wrote:

I do wish they'd open the engine rules up a bit again. I know there's the cost part but F1 was supposed to be about technology, not a slow decent into a spec series.

I kinda wonder what would happen if the FIA opened the rules a bit and instead of defining the engines they would just say " you have xx liters of this fuel or xx liters of this fuel. You cannot refuel thus you have to reach the finish with that amount. Have fun...."

Would they all opt for the same solution or would one team go for a big engine with a electric engine (more weight) to limit the fuel consumption and another would go for a smaller more fuel efficient engine and no electric engine?

RtN · PostPosted: Fri Aug 23, 2013 3:02 pm

I don't have a problem with it at all.

I was surprised at the indifference to which the news was being treated.

kals · PostPosted: Fri Aug 23, 2013 3:08 pm

We've become too accustomed to standardisation across various aspects of F1, with equalisation measures also placed on certain parts (like engines) which is turning this sport into a spec formula. To read suggestions that one manufacturer may have a significant advantage is a breath of fresh air. A return to times when this was the norm, year on year.

LucasWheldon · PostPosted: Fri Aug 23, 2013 5:09 pm

Gaara wrote:

I do wish they'd open the engine rules up a bit again. I know there's the cost part but F1 was supposed to be about technology, not a slow decent into a spec series.

freeze aerodynamics, with wider cars obviously

Echti · PostPosted: Fri Aug 23, 2013 6:37 pm

According to auto-motor-und-sport (and Bernie) the New Jersey Grand Prix won't take place next year.
Quite a shame because I was really looking forward to it.

TBK-Light.com

2013 Random F1 Discussion

Who is online